Training for inclusive education in preservice programs for Primary Education teachers in Spanish universities
La formación para la educación inclusiva en los
títulos de maestro en educación primaria de las
universidades españolas
DOI: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2021-393-496
José Manuel Sánchez-Serrano
Carmen Alba-Pastor
Ainara Zubillaga del Río
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Abstract
The recent approval of the new education law in Spain –LOMLOE– represents a firm commitment to inclusion as the guiding principle of the educational system, enhancing compliance with the agreements signed by Spain after the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and with the 4th objective of the 2030 Agenda, to ensure the right to inclusive education. Moving towards an inclusive school is a complex process, with implications for educational policies, school cultures and the role of teachers and consequently, their initial training is a key issue. Recent studies reveal that primary education teachers do not feel prepared to provide adequate educational attention to diverse students, stating not having received appropriate initial training on this subject. Therefore, it is relevant to consider what kind of inclusive education training is being taught at universities to future teachers. In the present study, the curricula of the current and active teaching degree for Primary Education of the 39 Spanish public universities have been reviewed, to identify the specific subjects on inclusive education and attention to diversity. Also, the syllabuses for these subjects have been analyzed to specify the underlying training approach, based on a predefined frame of reference. The results show variability among universities both in the number of compulsory subjects, which varies in a range from zero to three, and in the training focus, finding an unbalanced presence of different approaches. The implications of the unequal attention paid to inclusion in the different universities are discussed and recommendations are made to guarantee the adequate handling of this subject in the academic programs, which may be useful for the forthcoming reform of the teaching profession, foreseen in the LOMLOE.
Keywords: Pre-service teacher education, Inclusive education, Primary education, Teacher education curriculum, Syllabus.
Resumen
La reciente aprobación de la nueva ley educativa en España – LOMLOE – supone una apuesta decidida por la inclusión como principio rector del sistema educativo, avanzando en el cumplimiento de los compromisos adquiridos con la ratificación de la Convención de Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad y con el objetivo de la Agenda 2030 de hacer efectivo el derecho a la educación inclusiva. Transitar hacia una escuela inclusiva es un proceso complejo con implicaciones para las políticas educativas, las culturas de los centros y el rol de los docentes, resultando clave su formación inicial. Recientes estudios revelan que el profesorado de educación primaria no se siente preparado para proporcionar una adecuada atención educativa a la diversidad, declarando no haber recibido suficiente formación inicial al respecto. Resulta relevante, pues, examinar qué formación sobre educación inclusiva se está proporcionando a los futuros docentes desde las universidades. En el presente estudio se han revisado los currículos de los grados de Maestro en Educación Primaria de las 39 universidades públicas españolas con el grado en vigor para identificar las asignaturas específicas sobre educación inclusiva y atención a la diversidad, y se han analizado las guías docentes de dichas materias para precisar el enfoque formativo subyacente a partir de un marco de referencia predefinido. Los resultados muestran variabilidad tanto en el número de asignaturas obligatorias presentes en las distintas universidades, que varía en un rango de cero a tres, como en la orientación de la formación, encontrándose una presencia desequilibrada de los diferentes enfoques. Se discuten las implicaciones de la desigual atención que recibe la inclusión en las diferentes universidades y se apuntan recomendaciones para garantizar el adecuado tratamiento de esta materia en los planes de estudio, lo cual puede resultar útil de cara a la próxima reforma de la profesión docente, prevista en la LOMLOE.
Palabras clave: formación inicial del profesorado, educación inclusiva, educación primaria, plan de estudios, guía docente.
Introduction
The growing heterogeneity of students in Spain represents a real challenge for its educational system. Between the 2011-2012 and 2018-2019 academic years, the number of students with specific needs of educational support (known in Spain by the acronym ANEAE) increased by 72% in primary education, representing an increase from 6.8% to 11.7% of the total number of students enrolled in school. Furthermore, in 2018-2019 the percentage of students of foreign origin reached 10.5% for this stage of education (MEFP, 2020). This challenge is of particular concern to teachers, who are expected to provide learning opportunities for all students in a competent manner, while considering their different needs and abilities. However, the available evidence shows that a large part of the active teaching staff does not feel prepared to attend to diversity. In the latest edition of the TALIS study, 27% of Spanish primary education teachers stated that the area in which they had the greatest need for training was teaching students with special educational needs (known in Spain by the acronym ANEE). In addition, 18% recognized the great need for learning about teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings (MEFP, 2019). Both percentages are higher than the OECD and EU averages (OECD, 2019). This perceived lack of preparedness already appears during preservice teacher training. Studies carried out in different Spanish universities reveal that students in teacher training do not feel competent to give an adequate response to diversity, despite presenting a positive attitude toward inclusive education (Cardona, 2009; Izuzquiza et al., 2015).
This data leads us to question whether preservice training programs for teachers in our country are falling behind in regard to this issue. Various authors have pointed out that attention to diversity is an aspect that is not addressed enough in these programs (Cotán and Cantos, 2020; López-Torrijo and Mengual-Andrés, 2015). The TALIS results support this statement, with Spanish teachers declaring having received the least training during their teaching studies in two areas: teaching in mixed ability settings and teaching in a multicultural and multilingual setting, which was reported by 57% and 39%, respectively. This places us at the back of the line, lagging behind the rest of the countries. For those who have joined the profession during the last five years these percentages barely reach 68% and 60% (MEFP, 2019).
In this context, European institutions have already pointed out that, although there are general requirements at the national level that universities must adhere to when designing their teacher training curriculum, they do not establish the obligation to incorporate specific subjects on educational attention to diversity (Commission, 2017a). Although the teaching profession is a regulated professional activity in Spain, which allows the government to establish the degree requirements and the conditions that the curriculum must meet, the truth is that universities are given a lot of autonomy to adjust the subjects they offer to these conditions.
As Tiana (2013) argues, the 2007 reform gave universities a wide margin to design the teacher training curriculum. The regulations that govern the teaching degree for Primary Education1 since 2007 include a series of competences to be developed, in which we find those related to diversity issues. However, it does not determine the obligation to offer subjects in this regard. This is a contrast with previous regulations2 to the 2007 reform that, unlike this one, detailed the compulsory subjects very precisely (along with the contents and credits associated with them), including the so-called “Psycho-pedagogical Foundations of Special Education”.
Although the Commission (2017b) does not deny certain advantages derived from this decentralization, it also warns that it can be detrimental with regard to the introduction of diversity content in the curriculum, drawing attention to the fact that in many countries the educational offer has been reduced to one single, often optional, subject.
In addition to the weight assigned to attention to diversity in preservice teacher training, the underlying approach should be considered. For a time, the training revolved almost exclusively around issues related to students with special educational needs, being able to differentiate two approaches (Parrilla, 1992): categorical or traditional (training focused on the deficit of the students with special educational needs and on special methodologies for each category of students) and non-categorical or polyvalent (aimed at implementing educational programs of an integrative nature), also called deficit and integrative (Muntaner, 1999) or categorical and non-categorical (Gallego and Rodríguez, 2007). More recently, the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (Agency, 2011) identified two opposing positions between EU countries: one focused on disability and special needs versus the other concerned with responding to the diversity of the student population.
In this duality we can recognize two underlying perspectives regarding which students are considered to make up the so-called “diverse” group: a restricted vision, circumscribed to the students with special educational needs and based on the classic assumptions of special education, and a broad vision that considers the diversity as a transversal quality for all people and that is typical of the inclusive education paradigm. Despite the fact that this last broader interpretation is being taken on at an international level, there is no solid consensus on the concept of inclusive education, leaving some countries relying on a concept of “inclusion” as the education of people with disabilities (UNESCO, 2020a). Different authors recognize a greater variability of approaches when considering the subject. Clough and Corbett (2000) refer to five perspectives from which the thinking and understanding of inclusive education has been articulated: 1) Psycho-medical legacy, focused on the deficit of students and their diagnosis and treatment; 2) Sociological response, which emphasizes how sociocultural variables influence the educational experience; 3) Curricular approach, concerned with the curriculum meeting the educational needs of all; 4) School improvement strategies, interested in organizational factors and in promoting inclusive schools; and 5) Disability studies critique, which incorporates the vision of other disciplines. Likewise, Ainscow et al. (2006) identify six ways of conceptualizing inclusion through: 1) disability and special educational needs; 2) behavioral issues; 3) groups vulnerable to exclusion; 4) school for all; 5) “Education for All”; and 6) an approach based on principles and values.
The truth is that the broad conception of inclusion as the paradigm aimed at increasing the presence, participation, and success of all students (Booth and Ainscow, 2011) is being consolidated both in academic and social discourses and in national and international educational policies. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - CRPD (UN, 2006) established inclusive education as a right for all people. Furthermore, the 2030 Agenda has set a calendar to make this right effective through the sustainable development objective SDG-4: “Ensure inclusive education” (UN, 2015), referring to all students, with a special focus on those groups most affected by the processes of educational exclusion due to variables such as disability, gender, migration, sexual identity and orientation, or economic capacity, among others (UNESCO, 2020a). In regard to Spain, the recently approved LOMLOE3 has adopted inclusive education as a fundamental principle in basic education, explicitly committing itself to the CRPD and the 2030 Agenda, and has established that within ten years, educational centers must be prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities, which has important implications for teacher training.
Teachers are a key factor to advance toward inclusive education (Durán and Giné, 2011; Echeita, 2014; UNESCO, 2017; Zeichner, 2010) and preservice training constitutes an essential element in their ability to shift this paradigm (Muñoz- Fernández et al., 2019; Rebolledo, 2015; Tárraga et al., 2013). It has been pointed out that focusing training exclusively from a deficit categorical approach can be counterproductive and inappropriate for teaching (Agency, 2011; Slee, 2012; Thomas and Loxley, 2007). By contrast, betting on broader approaches (Arnaiz, 2003), focused on the curriculum, teaching methods or interculturality, has shown greater effectiveness for the training of inclusive teachers (Commission, 2017b). This latest Commission report, which analyzes the role of preservice teacher training on attention to diversity in European countries, clearly states that competency-based systems with transversal and comprehensive curricular approaches are the best way to pedagogically address this question. This transversality is also referred to by UNESCO (2020b), which also bets on inclusive approaches becoming the fundamental element of the general readiness of teachers in terms of attention to diversity, and does not reduce it to managing specialized content for certain types of students. Several countries have incorporated this approach into their educational policies. For example, the Education Department of Upper Austria integrates inclusive pedagogical competences in all its subjects, from the proposed transversal approach; or in South Africa, the guidelines for inclusive teaching revolve around the principle of inclusion and putting into practice the adaptation of the curriculum to the needs of the student body (UNESCO, 2020b). This effort to plan teacher training from a framework of transversality not only contributes to increasing inclusion, but also avoids the divergences that occur between the training itineraries for special education teachers and general teachers.
The data from the studies to which we have been referring to in previous lines, question whether or not preservice teacher training in our country is adequately responding to the challenge of preparing teachers to make inclusive education effective. In fact, in a recent report by the European Agency (2018), the Spanish political authorities themselves recognized that teacher training in universities should be improved to incorporate more aspects related to inclusion. The LOMLOE foresees the development of a regulation for preservice teacher training, which will probably entail modifications of Order ECI / 3857/2007 and, consequently, a reformulation of the academic programs of university teaching degrees. This represents an excellent opportunity to address potential gaps in these programs, if any, with regard to inclusive education.
It therefore becomes relevant to review to what extent Spanish universities are currently training future teachers in diversity issues and, if so, whether the focus of the training is aligned with the premises of inclusive education, aspects that are addressed in the study that we present below. Unlike previous works, such as that of López-Torrijo and Mengual-Andrés (2015), focused on the training curriculum for secondary school teachers, or that of Vélez-Calvo et al. (2016), whose results refer exclusively to the presence of specific subjects in quantitative terms, our study provides information both on the presence and on the approach used in the inclusion subjects in the academic program for the teaching degree for Primary Education. This review, carried out at the end of the stage that began with the 2007 reform, may be useful to guide decision-making for the new reform.
Method
The general objective of this work was to understand the training in inclusive education and attention to diversity (IEAD) that students in Primary Education degrees from Spanish universities are receiving through the offer of specific subjects on the matter. For this, we proposed an exploratory descriptive research study which implied, on the one hand, the review of the academic programs of the different universities that offer the degree to identify the subjects specifically designed to cover content on IEAD, and, on the other, the analysis of the respective programme of study (syllabus) to determine the underlying approach of the training provided as well as the content included.
Sample
The review covers the curriculum currently in place at all the Spanish publicly owned universities that teach the Primary Education degree4. To identify the sample, we relied on the information available in the Registry of Universities, Centers and Titles (RUCT) of the Ministry of Universities 5, according to which there are 39 public universities that offer the degree for the 2020-2021 academic year.
Based on the official statistics on university education, the number of students enrolled in this degree stood at 75,192 for the 2019-2020 academic year, with 57,154 belonging to the 39 public universities included in our analysis. Thus, the results that we present refer to the training received by 76.01% of future primary school teachers.
Our focus was placed on compulsory subjects, given that they constitute the common training that all students receive. The optional subjects were excluded from the study because it is only possible to guarantee that the students who take these courses receive the respective training in IEAD, which in turn also depends on multiple variables, such as the willingness to choose said subjects or their availability. In addition, in most universities the credits necessary to obtain a specialization are linked to elective credits, thus reducing the possibilities of choice for students seeking a specialization. In fact, in 21 of the 39 universities (53.8%) the credits associated with the specialization cover the totality of the elective ECTS of the academic program, which eliminates the possibility of taking any optional subject not connected to the specialization, including, when available, those related to IEAD.
Analysis framework and instruments
The review of the syllabuses focused on three nuclei of analysis, using the contents in them as the main source of information. First, to identify whether the subjects provided basic training aimed at developing a conceptual framework on inclusive education (e.g., contents related to the history and stages in educational attention to diversity, schooling models -exclusion, segregation, integration, inclusion-, distinction between special and inclusive education, international policies, etc.) and/or regulatory information (state and regional legislation in this regard). Second, to recognize the approach or perspective underlying the training. Third, to specify what type of diversity or what specific groups of students are explicitly referred to in the contents: students with special educational needs, gender equality, affective-sexual diversity, socioeconomic differences, issues related to migration and multiculturalism, etc.
To identify the underlying approach of the subjects, a reference framework was defined based on the different perspectives surrounding inclusive education (Ainscow et al., 2006; Clough and Corbett, 2000) and on the training approaches in attention to diversity (Parrilla, 1992; Muntaner, 1999) referred to in the theoretical introduction. Four non-exclusive approaches were identified in terms of their focus or content:
■ Curricular. Seeks to respond to diversity from the curriculum, overcoming learning barriers: teaching methods, flexible evaluations, classroom organization, scaffolding, grouping, etc.
■ School improvement. Contents aimed at moving toward an inclusive school for everyone: organization of the center, learning communities, participation of the educational community, barriers in the cultures and policies of the center, coexistence, etc.
■ Psycho-pedagogical. Attention is directed to the study of specific groups of students, mainly students with specific needs of educational support but also other profiles (e.g.: risk of social exclusion or behavior problems). Importance of psycho-pedagogical evaluation and intervention. We distinguish two sub-approaches:
– Traditional or categorical: each topic focuses on the diagnosis, etiology, classification, and treatment of a type of disability, developmental disorder, or learning disability.
– Polyvalent or non-categorical: the contents on students with specific needs of educational support do not occupy the entire agenda and are approached from a broader perspective in which other approaches are present.
■ Based on values. Contents related to the development of the values and principles of a diverse school: Human Rights, equal opportunities, tolerance, democratic schools, participation, non-violence, sustainability, etc.
To ensure the systematic review of the syllabuses, an ad hoc rubric was designed consisting of a series of indicators that made it possible to verify the presence or absence of specific content on IEAD and to assign the identified approaches.
Procedure
The study was developed in the last quarter of 2020 with updated information on the current academic programs during the 2020-2021 academic year, covering three phases:
■ Phase 1. Identification of universities and compilation of current academic programs through the RUCT (with access to the official publication of the programs in the Spanish official gazette BOE) and the university web pages. After that, the specific compulsory subjects on IEAD were identified based on their name, establishing an inclusion criterion that expressed reference be made to the subject from any perspective or approach, with terms such as diversity, educational inclusion, special education, educational needs, disorders, learning difficulties, inclusive school, interculturality, equality, values, etc. Four subjects belonging to the disciplines of Sociology and Anthropology were discarded despite containing some of these terms in their name, as they were not specific subjects on IEAD.
■ Phase 2. Compilation and analysis of the syllabuses for the identified subjects. These were reviewed by one of the researchers using the designed rubric, attending to the three nuclei of analysis previously identified: basic content, underlying approach and types/groups of diversity referred to.
■ Phase 3. Systematization and statistical processing of the information. All the information referring to the identified subjects, contents and assigned underlying focus, resulting from the review of the academic programs and syllabuses, was systematized in a summary table that can be found in Annex I. The data was treated quantitatively, calculating the number of subjects and the percentage they represented on the total for each of the three nuclei of analysis. Given that several universities had more than one subject on IEAD, which could imply that an aspect not covered in one subject was covered by another one in the same academic program, the corresponding calculations were carried out taking the university as the unit of reference, instead of the subject.
Results
A summary of the results can be found below. In the first place, we refer to the data associated with the number of compulsory subjects on IEAD identified in the set of academic programs, as well as a preliminary analysis of their names. Second, we describe the findings derived from the review of the programmes of study for the identified subjects for each of the three pre-established analysis nuclei.
Presence of subjects on IEAD and analysis of their names
The review of the academic programs reveals the variability in the number of compulsory subjects on IEAD offered by the universities, ranging from zero to three. As shown in Figure 1, we find that of the 39 public universities, 4 include three subjects in this regard (18 ECTS), 12 offer two subjects (9-12 ECTS) and 20 universities only have one (6 ECTS). The remaining three universities do not offer any. In total we have identified 56 subjects.
FIGURE 1. Number of universities according to the number of compulsory subjects on IEAD.
If we look at the number of primary education teaching students enrolled in the different universities, we observe that 8.2% of future teachers will have completed three subjects with content on the subject by the end of their studies, 36.0% two subjects, and 48.8% a single subject. The percentage of students enrolled in one of the three preservice teacher training programs without compulsory subjects on IEAD represents 7.1%.
As a first step to understand the contents and approaches present in the academic programs, we analyzed the title of the subjects. As can be seen in the list of subjects in the annexes, there is hardly any literary coincidence, with the greatest consensus found surrounding three names: Difficulties and/or Disorders of Development and Learning (N=8) (if we only consider “development” or “learning”, the number is greater), Psycho-pedagogical/psychological Foundations/bases of Attention to Diversity (N=5) and Attention to Diversity (N=3). The key terms that appear most frequently in the titles are diversity (N=19), difficulties (N=14), inclusion/inclusive (N=11), disorders (N=9), bases/foundations (N=9), psycho-pedagogical/psychoeducational (N=7) and psychology/psychological, school, coexistence and values (N=4 each term).
Grouping the subjects around thematic affinity (see Annex II), we verify that the biggest group is made up of those that have the words difficulties or disorders in their title (30.4%), followed by the groups of those that refer to attention to diversity (23.2%) and bases and foundations (19.6%). With less presence are those that refer to inclusion (14.3%) and the ethical component of educational intervention (12.5%).
The terminological analysis reveals the existing heterogeneity in terms of the name of the subjects, which seems to point to a lack of consensus in relation to what future teachers have to learn about IEAD in their preservice training.
Basic contents: conceptual and regulatory framework of reference
As can be seen in Table 1, 27 out of 39 universities (69.2%) have at least one subject that includes a topic/block with content aimed at providing teaching students with a conceptual framework of reference on inclusive education. In the case of the regulatory framework, only 15 universities (38.5%) include training on the legislation that regulates attention to diversity in the Spanish educational system. If we group the universities according to the number of compulsory subjects offered and we disaggregate the previous data for each of the resulting groups, we verify that said contents are covered in 100% of the academic programs that include 3 CSs, while the percentage decreases for programs that have 2 or 1 CS. This drop is especially appreciated in the case of the regulatory framework, which is only addressed in 50.0% of the universities that offer 2 CSs and 25.0% of those that offer 1 CS.
TABLE I. Number of universities with basic contents related to the conceptual and regulatory framework.
|
Nº OF OFFERED CS |
Nº UNIV / GROUP |
Nº (%)UNIVERSITIES WITH TRAINING IN |
||
|
Conceptual Framework |
Regulatory Framework |
|||
|
GROUP |
3 CS |
4 |
4 (100%) |
4 (100%) |
|
2 CS |
12 |
9 (75.0%) |
6 (50.0%) |
|
|
1 CS |
20 |
14 (70.0%) |
5 (25.0%) |
|
|
0 CS |
3 |
- |
- |
|
|
TOTAL |
39 |
27 (69.2%) |
15 (38.5%) |
|
|
ENROLLED STUDENTS |
57,154 |
42,251 (73.9%) |
24,574 (43.0%) |
|
Paying attention to the number of enrollments of each university, the proportion of teachers in primary education that will have completed a compulsory subject by the end of their initial studies in which a conceptual and/or regulatory framework of reference is provided reaches 73.9% and 43.0%, respectively.
Training approach on IEAD
Most of the identified subjects address content on inclusive education and attention to student diversity from more than one perspective. However, these approaches do not appear in a balanced way in the academic programs as a whole, as can be seen in Table 2. At a first glance, we observe that there is a clear predominance of the psycho-pedagogical approach, which is present in 36 out of the 56 subjects (64.3%). By far, it is followed by the contents closest to the curricular and school improvement approaches, present in both cases in 21 subjects (37.5%). Finally, those subjects that consider the subject from a values-based approach are limited to 7 (12.5%).
TABLE 2. Number of subjects that include each approach (by university group).
|
Nº OF OFFERED CS |
Nº UNIV / GROUP |
Nº OF TOTAL SUBJECTS / GROUP |
Nº (%) SUBJECTS INCLUDING EACH |
||||
|
Curricular |
School |
Psycho- |
Values |
||||
|
GROUP |
3 CS |
4 |
12 |
4 (33.3%) |
5 (41.7%) |
6 (50.0%) |
2 (16.7%) |
|
2 CS |
12 |
24 |
7 (29.2%) |
12 (50.0%) |
13 (54.2%) |
5 (20.8%) |
|
|
1 CS |
20 |
20 |
10 (50.0%) |
4 (20.0%) |
17 (85.0%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
0 CS |
3 |
0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
TOTAL |
39 |
56 |
21 (37.5%) |
21 (37.5%) |
36 (64.3%) |
7 (12.5%) |
|
The preeminence of the psycho-pedagogical approach over the rest of perspectives is found in all university groups, regardless of the number of compulsory subjects offered; although, this becomes more pronounced in the group of those that only have 1 CS. Thus, the psycho-pedagogical perspective, whose presence in the 3 CS and 2 CS groups is around 50%, shoots up to 85.0% in the 1 CS group. The greater weight of this approach coincides with a lower focus on the school improvement perspective, present in 20.0% of the subjects, and with the disappearance of the values approach in this group.
The previous analysis can be complemented by using the number of universities in which each approach is present as a reference, data that we have collected in Table 3. This data informs us about how many universities incorporate each of the approaches through any of their offered compulsory subjects. Consequently, it allows us to calculate how many students will have received training from different perspectives throughout their academic career. For example, Table 2 shows that the school improvement approach is present in 21 out of 57 subjects (37.5%), while as reflected in Table 3 we know that these 21 subjects are taught in 18 of the 39 universities (46.2%), which enroll 51.5% of all students.
TABLE 3. Number of universities including each approach (by university group).
|
Nº OF OFFERED CS |
Nº UNIV / GROUP |
Nº (%) UNIVERSITIES INCLUDING EACH PERSPECTIVE/APPROACH |
AVERAGE Nº OF APPROACHES / GROUP |
||||
|
Curricular |
School Improvement |
Psycho |
Values |
||||
|
GROUP |
3 CS |
4 |
4 (100%) |
4 (100%) |
4 (100%) |
2 (50.0%) |
3,5 |
|
2 CS |
12 |
7 (58.3%) |
10 (83.3%) |
11 (91.7%) |
5 (41.7%) |
2,8 |
|
|
1 CS |
20 |
10 (50.0%) |
4 (20.0%) |
17 (85.0%) |
0 (0%) |
1,6 |
|
|
0 CS |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
TOTAL |
39 |
21 (53.8%) |
18 (46.2%) |
32 (82.1%) |
7 (17.9%) |
2,0 |
|
|
ENROLLED STUDENTS |
57,154 |
32,319 (56,6%) |
29,445 (51.5%) |
48,605 (85.0%) |
9,182 (16.1%) |
- |
|
As we have already pointed out from the data referring to the subjects, we observe that the different approaches have also been present very unevenly in the total set of 39 universities. In descending order, we find the psycho-pedagogical approach in 32 universities, curricular in 21, school improvement in 18 and, finally, the values-based approach in 7. This imbalance is not manifested with the same magnitude in all universities, but there are substantial differences depending on the number of subjects offered on IEAD. Thus, in those that offer 3 CSs, it turns out that all the approaches are present in 100% of the universities that make up this group, with the exception of the value-based one, which is included in half of these institutions. At the opposite end we find the group of universities that only have 1 CS in their academic program, in which the greatest disproportion between approaches is revealed, with a presence of the psycho-pedagogical perspective in 85.0% of the cases, curricular in 50.0% and school improvement in 20.0%, the values-oriented perspective disappearing.
In light of the data presented so far, we can make two observations. In the first place, that in universities that have more than one compulsory subject and, therefore, allocate a greater number of credits to training in IEAD, the opportunities for students to receive a more comprehensive training are increased, by having the possibility of accessing more content and from different approaches. This can be corroborated considering the average number of approaches present in each group of universities (collected in the last column of Table 3). In the 3 CS group, the mean of approaches is = 3.5, while in the 1 CS group the value decreases to = 1.6. This assessment also applies in relation to the aforementioned contents intended to provide a basic conceptual and regulatory framework on the subject, an aspect that, as we have seen, is only guaranteed in universities with 3 CSs.
Secondly, it is found that in the preservice training that teachers receive on IEAD, a psycho-pedagogical preference is indisputably imposed. The data indicate that a large majority of future teachers (85.0%) will have been trained in this regard from a psycho-pedagogical approach by the end of their studies. However, only slightly more than half will have received training to respond to the diversity of the student body from a curricular perspective or focused on school improvement (56.6% and 51.5%, respectively) and only 16.1% from a values-based approach. In fact, in universities that allocate the least ECTS for compulsory subjects on the topic (1 CS), the approach that seems to be least affected by this limitation is the psycho-pedagogical one, prevailing in 17 of the 20 universities, coinciding with a lower presence of other approaches (e.g., school improvement in 4 universities and values-based in none).
Within the group of subjects in which we have identified the psycho-pedagogical approach, and according to our predefined frame of reference, we can distinguish two sub-approaches: traditional or categorical and polyvalent or non-categorical. In Figure 2 we have represented the distribution of these sub-approaches in the 36 subjects in which the psycho-pedagogical perspective is present. The number of subjects most aligned with the traditional approach amounts to 22 (61.1%), while those closest to the polyvalent approach stands at 12 (33.3%). In 2 subjects (5.6%) we found both approaches, being divided into two differentiated blocks, taught by two different departments.
FIGURE 2. Distribution of traditional and polyvalent approaches in psycho-pedagogical subjects.
Going a little deeper in this regard, the data show that 10 out of 20 universities that only offer 1 CS (and in which 24.0% of all students from public universities are trained), offer training that follows an exclusively psycho-pedagogical approach, with apparently no other perspective present. The contents collected in the syllabuses reflect that 8 of them underlie a marked traditional or categorical approach.
Reference to different groups of students or “types” of diversity
As pointed out in the theoretical introduction, the term “diversity” referring to students has traditionally been associated with students with special educational needs. Although, in the current discourse of inclusive education, a broader conception that encompasses other variables such as gender or migrant status, for which educational models such as coeducation or interculturality have come to gain prominence in the paradigm of inclusion has been adopted.
In our review of the programmes of study we have analyzed what types of diversity are explicitly referred to, finding that 37 out of 56 subjects (66.1%) refer to one or more groups of students with specific needs of educational support, especially to students with needs derived from disability, learning difficulties or developmental disorders. In a much smaller number, 12 subjects (21.4%) mention foreign students or incorporate multiculturalism/interculturalism. At a smaller scale, 5 subjects (8.9%) deal with the issue of gender equality, 4 (7.1%) with socioeconomic inequalities and 3 (5.4%) with questions about affective-sexual diversity. Only in 1 subject have we found allusions to ethnic minorities, such as the Roma population. Finally, in 14 subjects (24.6%) no direct reference is made to any specific group or source of diversity.
Discussion
Our study aimed to explore the teacher training provided to students of Primary Education qualifications on issues related to inclusive education and attention to student diversity, both from a quantitative point of view (number of compulsory subjects in this regard) and qualitative (content and approach of the training), for which the current academic programs in the 39 public universities offering the degree have been reviewed and the syllabuses for the identified subjects have been analyzed. The results for this group of universities shows that training is notably insufficient: more than half have only one subject and in three of them no compulsory training is provided in this regard, which supports the discourses on the scant attention that the subject receives in preservice training (Cotán and Cantos, 2020; López-Torrijo and Mengual-Andrés, 2015) and would explain, in part, the feeling of lack of preparation manifested in various studies by both teachers in training (Cardona, 2009; Izuzquiza et al., 2015) and in-service teachers (MEFP, 2019; OECD, 2019). The scarce presence of specific training on IEAD compromises the preparation of future teachers. In this sense, we have been able to verify, for example, that around six out of ten students will obtain the degree without having received a training that allows them to become familiar with the current legislation on educational attention to diversity. In addition, it places our academic programs in a position that is certainly far from the EU’s recommendations in this regard, which explicitly states that incorporating one or two subjects on inclusion is clearly insufficient (Agency, 2015).
Beyond the weight given to the IEAD, it is crucial to consider the approach that the training follows. As we have pointed out, the psycho-pedagogical approach, centered on knowledge and specific intervention on the students with specific needs of educational support, is predominant, with almost nine out of ten students receiving this training. On the other hand, it is striking that other approaches, such as curricular or school improvement, are present in the training of just over half of future teachers, which is a significant gap for the rest, who may join the profession without the necessary knowledge to provide adequate educational attention to the diversity of the student body. However, not all universities observe these training “gaps”: in those that allocate more ECTS to IEAD, the training is more comprehensive, being able to identify a greater number of approaches, which, without a doubt, offers students the possibility of developing a wider range of competences for inclusion.
Finally, a good part of the subjects revolves around students with needs derived from disabilities or learning difficulties, while references to other types of diversities, such as socioeconomic, cultural, or affective-sexual, are anecdotal in the whole of the academic programs. Given the excessive focus of training on the students with specific needs of educational support in some cases and the “invisibility” of certain diversities in others, there is a risk that the message that the “diverse” are exclusively the students with disabilities or learning difficulties permeates the understanding of preservice teaching students, thus perpetuating a more traditional concept of diversity, which is far from the fundamental assumptions of inclusive education (UNESCO, 2000a).
In short, initial training on inclusive education received by teachers in various universities is insufficient and incomplete, not covering certain essential content for the proper professional activity.
Conclusions
Preservice teacher training cannot be kept out of the evolution that our educational system has to undergo in order to comply with the commitments made by Spain in recent years in pursuit of inclusive education (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Agenda 2030). Not surprisingly, the LOMLOE has assumed inclusive education as a fundamental principle and has determined that by 2025 teachers must be qualified to meet the goals of the 2030 Agenda. In this context, it should be guaranteed that any academic program leading to a teaching degree enable students to face the challenge of inclusive education, which would imply acting in two areas.
In the first place, it would be convenient for the regulations of these degrees to establish the obligation to include compulsory training in this regard in the academic programs, as recommended by the EU (Commission, 2017b). In this sense, a specific module of inclusive education could be defined, as is already the case in Order ECI / 3857/2007 with subjects related to other academic subjects (mathematics, natural sciences, physical education, etc.). Furthermore, it is important that the regulations emphasize the inclusive approach which training should follow, which would not exclude the possibility of incorporating specific content related to the students with specific needs of educational support. It is necessary to ensure that IEAD training is approached from multiple perspectives, following a comprehensive approach, and especially considering the development of competences to intervene in the classroom following a curricular approach, which would be more adequately aligned with the precepts of the LOMLOE, which establishes that attention to diversity should be focused according to the principles of Universal Design for Learning, a teaching model aimed at the design of a curriculum for all.
Second, it is necessary for universities to commit to the paradigm of inclusion, enabling its philosophy to permeate teacher training academic programs. The inclusive teacher profile prepared by the Agency (2012) can be an excellent framework to guide training in this regard and, given its European scope, incorporating it into our programs could give them added value, making them even more attractive and international in terms of mobility programs (e.g., Erasmus).
This commitment involves reserving an adequate amount of ECTS for content on inclusion. It is true that inclusive education should be present across the entire academic program, however, this cannot justify the non-incorporation of specific compulsory subjects in this regard, given that it is a field of knowledge with its own content that needs to be treated independently. Furthermore, as Izuzquiza et al. (2015, p. 200) state, a transversal approach “has the risk of being inefficient - as is often the case with what belongs to everyone but for what no one has, in the end, a specific responsibility”.
Similarly, inclusive education training cannot be relegated to optional subjects either. Given that it is a fundamental aspect for the activity of the teaching profession, this training cannot depend on the will of the students. In addition, as we have already pointed out previously, on many occasions these subjects are not eligible for all students, especially for those who take on a specialization.
Ultimately, it is about acting with foresight to ensure that the general interest of shaping an academic program that responds to the social demands of the profession is prioritized over potential particular interests, as Imbernón suggests avoiding:
It cannot be that every time the teaching curriculum is revised, it becomes, in many universities, a burden (or continuation) of the worst part of the academic culture […] And it keeps repeating itself, more of the same, because it is difficult to discard certain subjects given that sometimes the “what about mine?” predominates, having been taught for years though no longer valid (2017, p. 64).
Limitations
Our study is not without its limitations. In the first place, this work does not reflect the reality surrounding the training that students receive for teacher qualifications in Primary Education on inclusive education, but rather the results are based on the information that appears in the syllabuses. Thus, it could happen that there are teachers who introduce content in this regard in their subjects, even if they deal with other topics. Second, we have not reviewed the contents of all the compulsory subjects, but only those whose names indicated that they dealt specifically with IEAD. We are aware that these topics are occasionally treated briefly in core subjects such as General Didactics or Educational and Development Psychology (in its various names). However, the transversal or superficial treatment that can be done from these subjects (often a single topic or block of contents) does not seem sufficient to guarantee the adequate preparedness of future teachers. For this reason, our study focuses on compulsory subjects that are specifically aimed at training in inclusive education.
References
Agencia Europea para las Necesidades Educativas Especiales y la Inclusión Educativa (2011). Teacher Education for Inclusion across Europe. Challenges and opportunities. https://www.european-agency.org/resources/publications/teacher-education-inclusion-across-europe-challenges-and-opportunities
— (2012). Teacher Education for Inclusion – Profile of Inclusive Teachers. https://www.european-agency.org/resources/publications/teacher-education-inclusion-profile-inclusive-teachers
— (2015). Empowering Teachers to Promote Inclusive Education. Literature review. https://www.european-agency.org/resources/publications/empowering-teachers-promote-inclusive-education-literature-review
— (2018). Country policy review and analysis: Spain. https://www.european-agency.org/projects/country-policy-review-and-analysis
Ainscow, M., Booth, T. y Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge.
Arnaiz, P. (2003). Educación inclusiva: una escuela para todos. Aljibe.
Booth, T. y Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for Inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools (3rd edition). C.S.I.E.
Cardona, M.C. (2009). Teacher education students’ beliefs of inclusion and perceived competence to teach students with disabilities in Spain. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 10(1), 33-41. https://www.iase.org/JIASE%202009.pdf
Clough, P. y Corbett, J. (2000). Theories of incluisve education. P.C.P.
Comisión Europea (2017a). Preparing Teachers for Diversity: the Role of Initial Teacher Education. Annex 1: Country fiches. https://op.europa.eu/es/publication-detail/-/publication/48a3dfa1-1db3-11e7-aeb3-01aa75ed71a1
— (2017b). Preparing Teachers for Diversity: the Role of Initial Teacher Education. Final Report. https://op.europa.eu/es/publication-detail/-/publication/b347bf7d-1db1-11e7-aeb3-01aa75ed71a1
Cotán, A. y Cantos, M. (2020). Análisis de la formación docente en relación a las necesidades educativas del alumnado en las aulas. Polyphōnía. Revista de Educación Inclusiva, 4(1), 97-116. http://revista.celei.cl/index.php/PREI/article/view/139
Durán, D. y Giné, C. (2011). La formación del profesorado para la educación inclusiva: Un proceso de desarrollo profesional y de mejora de los centros para atender la diversidad. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Inclusiva, 5(2), 153-170. http://www.rinace.net/rlei/numeros/vol5-num2/art8.html
Echeita, G. (2014). Educación para la inclusión o educación sin exclusiones. Narcea.
Gallego, J.L. y Rodríguez, A. (2007). Tendencias en la formación inicial del profesorado en educación especial. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 5(3), 102-117. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=55130509
Imbernón, F. (2017). Ser docente en una sociedad compleja. La difícil tarea de enseñar. Graó.
Izuzquiza, D., Echeita, G. y Simón, C. (2015). La percepción de estudiantes egresados de magisterio en la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid sobre su competencia profesional para ser “profesorado inclusivo”: un estudio preliminar. Tendencias pedagógicas, 26, 197-216. https://repositorio.uam.es/handle/10486/668104
López-Torrijo, M. y Mengual-Andrés, S. (2015). An attack on inclusive education in Secondary Education. Limitations in initial teacher training in Spain. New approaches in educational research, 4(1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2015.1.100
MEFP, Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional (2019). TALIS 2018. Estudio internacional de la enseñanza y del aprendizaje. Informe español – Volumen I. https://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/inee/evaluaciones-internacionales/talis/talis-2018/informes-espanoles.html
— (2020). Anuario estadístico. Las cifras de la educación en España. http://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/servicios-al-ciudadano/estadisticas/indicadores/cifras-educacion-espana.html
Muntaner, J. (1999). Bases para la formación del profesorado en la escuela abierta a la diversidad. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 36, 125-141. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=118050
Muñoz-Fernández, G.A., Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, P. y Luque-Vílchez, M. (2019). La formación inicial del profesorado de Educación Secundaria en España: perfil y motivaciones del futuro docente. Educación XX1, 22(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.20007
OCDE (2019). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I). Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
ONU (2006). Resolución 61/106 de la Asamblea General “Convención sobre los derechos de las personas con discapacidad” A/RES/61/106 (13-diciembre-2006). https://undocs.org/es/A/61/106
— (2015). Resolución 70/1 de la Asamblea General “Transformar nuestro mundo: la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible” A/RES/70/1 (25-septiembre-2015). https://undocs.org/es/A/RES/70/1
Parrilla, A. (1992). El profesor ante la integración escolar: Investigación y formación. Cincel.
Rebolledo, T. (2015). La formación inicial del profesorado de educación primaria y secundaria en Alemania, España, Finlandia, Francia y Reino Unido. Estudio comparado. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 25, 129-148. https://doi.org/10.5944/reec.25.2015.14787
Slee, R. (2012). How do we make inclusive education happen when exclusion is a political predisposition? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(8), 895-907. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.602534
Tárraga, R., Grau, C. y Peirats, J. (2013). Actitudes de los estudiantes del Grado de Magisterio y del Máster de Educación Especial hacia la inclusión educativa. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 16(1), 55-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/reifop.16.1.179441
Thomas, G. y Loxley, A. (2007). Deconstrucción de la educación especial y construcción de la inclusiva. La Muralla.
Tiana, A. (2013). Los cambios recientes en la formación inicial del profesorado en España: Una reforma incompleta. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 22, 39-58. https://doi.org/10.5944/reec.22.2013.9322
UNESCO (2017). Guía para asegurar la inclusión y la equidad en la educación. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259592
— (2020a). Global Education Monitoring Report. Inclusion and education: All means all. ED-2020/WS/18. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718
— (2020b). Enseñanza inclusiva: Preparar a todos los docentes para enseñar a todos los alumnos. ED/GEM/MRT/2020/PP/43. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374447
Vélez-Calvo, X., Tárraga-Mínguez, R., Fernández-Andrés, M.I. y Sanz-Cervera, P. (2016). Formación inicial de maestros en Educación Inclusiva: Una comparación entre Ecuador y España. Revista nacional e internacional de Educación Inclusiva, 9(3), 75-94. https://revistaeducacioninclusiva.es/index.php/REI/article/view/254
Zeichner, K. (2010). La formación del profesorado y la lucha por la justicia social. Morata.
Contact address: José Manuel Sánchez-Serrano. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Educación, Departamento de Estudios Educativos. C/ Rector Royo Villanova, s/n, 28040 Madrid, España. E-mail: josemanuel.sanchez@ucm.es
Annex I.
Summary table of compulsory subjects on IEAD
|
UNIVERSITY(1) |
STUDENTS(2) |
SUBJECT |
AREA |
FRAME |
APPROACH(3) |
TYPE OF DIVERSITY |
|||||||||||
|
N |
% |
Conceptual |
Regulatory |
Curricular |
School improv. |
Psychopedagogic |
Base don values |
SESN(5) |
Gender issues |
Affecitve Sexual |
Foreign / Cultural |
Socioeconomic |
Other |
||||
|
3 COMPULSORY SUBJECTS |
02.UNIZAR |
2,120 |
3.71 |
Attention to diversity |
DOE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
||||||||
|
Social and intercultural education |
THE |
• |
• |
||||||||||||||
|
Evolutionary processes and diversity |
PEE |
T |
• |
||||||||||||||
|
04.UIB |
1,033 |
1.81 |
Specific learning difficulties |
DOE |
• |
P |
• |
||||||||||
|
Inclusive Education |
DOE |
• |
• |
• |
|||||||||||||
|
Psychoed. interv. in language difficult. in… |
PEE |
T |
• |
||||||||||||||
|
10.UJI |
920 |
1.61 |
Learning difficulties in primary education |
PEE |
T |
• |
|||||||||||
|
Education for diversity |
DOE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
||||||||
|
Developmental disorders |
PEE |
T |
• |
||||||||||||||
|
17.UNIRIOJA |
588 |
1.03 |
Inclusive educ. and response to divers.: 6-12 |
DOE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
|||||||||
|
Education for coexistence |
DOE THE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
|||||||||||
|
Develop. disorders & learning difficulties |
PEE |
T |
• |
• |
|||||||||||||
|
2 COMPULSORY SUBJECTS |
01.UGR |
3,711 |
6.49 |
Attention to diversity in primary education |
DOE PEE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
P |
• |
||||||
|
Learning difficulties |
PEE |
T |
• |
||||||||||||||
|
01.US |
3,104 |
5.43 |
Develop. and learning difficulties |
PEE PETRA |
T |
• |
|||||||||||
|
Research meth. & attent. to divers. (½ subj.) |
DOE |
• |
• |
||||||||||||||
|
01.UMA |
1,905 |
3.33 |
Towards inclusive schools: Models & practices |
DOE |
• |
• |
• |
||||||||||
|
Develop. disorders & learning difficulties |
PEE |
T |
• |
||||||||||||||
|
01.UCO |
1,460 |
2.55 |
Diversity, coexistence and Inclusive Educ. |
DOE THE |
• |
• |
|||||||||||
|
Psych. of school coexistence in Prim. School |
PEE |
• |
|||||||||||||||
|
01.UHU |
1,154 |
2.02 |
Attention to diversity and tutoring (½ subj.) |
DOE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
|||||||||
|
Psychological bases of special education |
PEE |
• |
T |
• |
|||||||||||||
|
03.UNIOVI |
1,224 |
2.14 |
Psychological bases of attention to diversity |
PEE |
T |
• |
• |
||||||||||
|
Education in values |
THE |
• |
• |
• |
|||||||||||||
|
2 COMPULSORY SUBJECTS |
07.UVA |
2,031 |
3.55 |
Education for peace and equality |
DOE PEE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
|||||||
|
Psychoped. foundations of atten. to diversity |
DOE PEE |
• |
• |
• |
T |
• |
|||||||||||
|
07.USAL |
1,205 |
2.11 |
Attention to diversity |
DOE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
P |
||||||||
|
Psychology of learning difficulties |
PEE |
T |
• |
||||||||||||||
|
07.UNILEON |
538 |
0.94 |
Education in values |
Hª PENS |
• |
• |
|||||||||||
|
Childhood disorders |
PETRA |
T |
• |
||||||||||||||
|
13.UAM |
1,221 |
2.14 |
Psychoped. bases for educational inclusion |
Various |
• |
• |
• |
• |
P |
• |
|||||||
|
Educating for equality and citizenship |
Various |
• |
• |
||||||||||||||
|
15.UNAVARRA |
748 |
1.31 |
Diversity and psychopedagogical response |
DOE PEE |
• |
T / P |
• |
||||||||||
|
Society, family & inclusive school (1 block) |
DOE |
• |
• |
||||||||||||||
|
16.UPV |
2,267 |
3.97 |
Bases of inclusive school |
DOE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
|||||||||
|
Developmental and learning difficulties |
PEE |
T |
• |
||||||||||||||
Notes: (1) The digit inform about the CCAA (region) to which each university belongs (2) Source: Ministry of Universities (see footnote 3). (3) Psycho-pedagogical approach: T (Traditional) / P (Polyvalent). (4) Roma population. (5) SESN: Specific Educational Support Needs.
|
UNIVERSITY (1) |
STUDENTS (2) |
SUBJECT |
AREA |
FRAME |
APPROACH(3) |
TYPE OF DIVERSITY |
|||||||||||
|
N |
% |
Conceptual |
Regulatory |
Curricular |
School improv. |
Psychopedagogic |
Base don values |
SESN(5) |
Gender issues |
Affecitve Sexual |
Foreign / Cultural |
Socioeconomic |
Other |
||||
|
1 COMPULSORY SUBJECT |
01.UJAEN |
1,605 |
2.81 |
Psychopedagog. bases of Special Education |
DOE PEE |
• |
• |
• |
T / P |
• |
|||||||
|
01.UCA |
1,192 |
2.09 |
Educational treatment of learning differenc. |
DOE PEE |
• |
• |
P |
• |
|||||||||
|
01.UAL |
923 |
1.61 |
Specific educational support needs |
PEE |
• |
T |
• |
• |
• |
||||||||
|
05.ULPGC |
1,667 |
2.92 |
Difficulties in the learning process |
PEE |
• |
• |
• |
P |
• |
||||||||
|
06.UNICAN |
867 |
1.52 |
Psychoped. foundations of atten. to diversity |
DOE PEE |
• |
• |
|||||||||||
|
07.UBU |
567 |
0.99 |
Psychoped. foundations of atten. to diversity |
PEE |
P |
• |
|||||||||||
|
08.UCLM |
2,627 |
4.60 |
Learning and development disorders |
PEE |
T |
• |
• |
||||||||||
|
09.UB |
2,116 |
3.70 |
Theory and practice of the inclusive school |
DOE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
P |
• |
• |
• |
|||||
|
09.UAB |
1,054 |
1.84 |
Differences and inclusion |
PEE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
P |
• |
• |
||||||
|
09.UDL |
772 |
1.35 |
Attention to diversity |
PEE |
P |
• |
• |
||||||||||
|
09.URV |
682 |
1.19 |
Learning difficulties & develop. disorders |
PEE |
• |
T |
• |
||||||||||
|
10.UV |
2,425 |
4.24 |
Special educational needs |
PEE |
• |
T |
• |
||||||||||
|
10.UA |
1,681 |
2.94 |
Learning difficulties & develop. disorders |
PEE |
T |
• |
|||||||||||
|
11.UNEX |
2,050 |
3.59 |
Psychoed. attent. to divers & school coexist. |
PEE PETRA |
• |
T |
• |
||||||||||
|
12.USC |
1,005 |
1.76 |
Learning difficulties & develop. disorders |
PEE |
T |
• |
|||||||||||
|
12.UVIGO |
983 |
1.72 |
Prevent. and treat. of LD & develop. disord. |
PEE |
T |
• |
|||||||||||
|
12.UDC |
630 |
1.10 |
Inclusive and multicultural education |
DOE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
(4) |
||||||||
|
13.URJC |
1,546 |
2.70 |
Attent. to divers. & educational inclusion… |
MIDE |
• |
• |
|||||||||||
|
13.UAH |
1,203 |
2.10 |
Psychoped. foundations of atten. to diversity |
PEE |
• |
• |
• |
• |
P |
• |
• |
||||||
|
14.UM |
2,284 |
4.00 |
School organiz. & student divers. (½ subj.) |
DOE |
• |
• |
• |
P |
• |
||||||||
|
0 CS |
05.ULL |
939 |
1.64 |
- |
- |
||||||||||||
|
09.UDG |
644 |
1.13 |
- |
- |
|||||||||||||
|
13.UCM |
2,463 |
4.31 |
- |
- |
|||||||||||||
Notes: (1) The digit inform about the CCAA (region) to which each university belongs (2) Source: Ministry of Universities (see footnote 3). (3) Psycho-pedagogical approach: T (Traditional) / P (Polyvalent). (4) Roma population. (5) SESN: Specific Educational Support Needs.
Annex II.
List of subjects grouped by main theme according to their name
|
TOPIC |
SUBJECT & UNIVERSITY |
|
Inclusion / inclusive N=8 |
|
|
Foundations / bases N=11 |
|
|
Values N=7 |
|
|
Diversity N=13 |
|
|
Disorders / difficulties N=17 |
|
1(1) Order ECI / 3857/2007, of December 27, which establishes the requirements for the verification of official university degrees that enable the professional practice of the Primary Education Teacher.
2(2) Royal Decree 1440/1991, of August 30, which establishes the official university teaching qualification, in its various specialties and the general guidelines of the curriculum leading to its completion.
3(3) Organic Law 3/2020, of December 29, which modifies Organic Law 2/2006, of May 3, on Education.
4(4) The name varies from one university to another.
5(5) RUCT: https://www.educacion.gob.es/ruct/home. Date retrieved: 23/10/2020